Doting
on good news we note with pleasure that those bad, very bad, Germans of Hitler's
Third Reich were ground to dust in World War II, and since then good Germans
people Germany. The not so good news is that the question still rightly lingers:
Are they really that good, or are they just the same good old Germans?

If
anything, one thing that strikes you is that
decency is not German politicians’ strong suit (click here for more). For
instance, they like to express in public great sorrow at the fate of the Jews
during the Third Reich. At the same time they will tell you that you cannot
expect most people to be heroes. What they are saying by implication is that the
Third Reich wouldn't have happened if only Germans had been possessed of unusual
courage. Germans, we are expected to believe, were guilty of nothing more than
an all too human lack of courage; or at worst Germans were just disinterested
"spectators", supposedly at an arena in which Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and a few
other Nazi greats were misbehaving in relative isolation. The truth of course is
different; Hitler's policies and war aims enjoyed acceptance, to a lesser or
greater degree, by the vast majority of Germans. As for lack of courage, Germans
didn't lack courage when it came to fighting for their psychopathic "Führer".
They fought with perverted valor and they didn't stop fighting until the Allies
occupied practically every square meter of Germany. The obvious fact is, that
if the majority of Germans had been disgusted with Hitler as they should have
been, no one would have needed any courage to resist his regime. Even more
so because the wartime Wehrmacht was almost entirely a conscript army recruited
from all walks of life of German society; in other words the people had the guns
and thus the means to remove Hitler from power had enough of them wanted to. No,
the problem wasn't cowardice but rather twisted-mindedness. The broader
implication of the said position is that Jews, like everybody else, not being
heroes, are in essence no better than Germans. This of course is an insult.
Everybody was better than the Germans. The trouble with the Nazis wasn't so much
that they were Nazis but that they were Germans. Take the Italian fascists. As
vile as they were they didn't even come close to being Nazis. Their leader
Mussolini, who unlike Hitler ended-up being killed by his own people, was a
saint compared to Hitler, and Italians’ enthusiasm for Hitler's war was
conspicuous by its absence. As for the Spanish fascist leader Francisco Franco,
he was for all his despotism an angel by comparison. He didn't join Hitler's war
and he even let fleeing Jews take refuge in Spain.

With
typical self-pity, German politicians complain that Germans are being constantly
taken advantage of because of their bad conscience stemming from their past.
Jews seeking indemnification for their persecution under the Nazis, as widely
reported in the media, are of course the prime example that comes to mind. Thus
insinuating that the noble-minded Germans are the victims of Jewish greed: A
favorite Nazi theme. To be sure we are told, Germany has nothing against what is
pointedly referred to as "justifiable" claims: what is at issue, one is left to
deduce, are all those "unjustifiable" ones. It does not seem to occur to
anybody in Germany that the crimes perpetrated during the Third Reich were so
outrageous and of such enormous proportions that no amount of compensation can
be exaggerated; indeed that there isn’t the slightest chance that too much, by
any acceptable standard, will ever be paid by way of what the Germans call
"Amends".

Germany
has been indemnifying Jews for over 50 years now, isn’t it enough? A good
question, so let's see:

Not so
long ago, being caught up with by police after a high-speed highway chase,
Rodney King, a petty criminal and a bear of a man, was roughed up by angered Los
Angeles policemen. Even though no serious injury was caused, the city of Los
Angeles was ordered to pay a total of 8 million dollars in damages for the
presumably racially inspired unruly behavior of its officers.

Aber... aber.. your good German will not fail to say:
The city of Los Angeles! That home of make believe Hollywood! This maverickplace in the maverick State of
California cannot seriously serve as an example. O.K. my good Teutonic
friend. Remember Lockerbie, Scotland?: A bomb placed aboard by Libyan
agents blew up a Pan Am Airliner over Lockerbie causing 270 deaths.In August 2003 Libya finally admitted
blame and transferred the amount of $ 2.7 billion to a Swiss escrow account. The
money to be paid out at $ 10 million a victim to the bereaved families as
compensation. Well, the facts speak for themselves. Why on Earth should anyone
expect less of Germany?

Now not
less than 8 million European Jews, of whom 6 million were murdered, were the
object of barbaric persecution by the Germans during the Third Reich. By the
standard set by the Rodney King case, and taking into account the buying power
of the Dollar, at 1 million dollars a victim, damages due from Germany, payable
at the end of the war in 1945, would have amounted to 8 trillion dollars. At a
reasonable 6% interest, Germany should have been paying in damages, without
reducing its debt one cent in the process, 480 billion dollars a year.
Instead, it made payments of no more than paltry 47 billion dollars (@
1$=2.30DM) of which only 85% went to Jewish claimants, that's a ridiculous total
of no more than 6000 dollars a victim, stretched over 54 years. About $ 8 a
month per victim. So, having paid practically nothing so far, what Germany
owes now in damages are still the original 8 trillion dollars compounded at 6%
interest over 54 years, a total of 186 trillion dollars; and that's more than
Germany is worth at present (Year 2000).

The above sum
gives us an idea, in monetary terms for a change, of the enormity of the crimes
against Jews committed by Germany. If it started paying now just the interest on
the above amount it would have to pay in compensation to Jews alone 11 trillion
dollars yearly –which is five times its annual gross domestic product.
Obviously, Germany will never be able to pay anything that even remotely
approaches what it ought to for the crimes committed by the Third Reich.
But, it certainly can be expected to pay no less than 1% of its GDP in
perpetuity. That would be at present about 45 billion German marks or 20 billion
dollars a year.

Germany, however,
spends currently— in line with what it has been spending over the years—only
about 2 billion German marks a year for its entire "Amends" effort which it
expects to terminate in about 20 years. Obviously German opinion is that it is
quite appropriate to profit from the fact that most of the victims of
persecution were killed in concentration camps or have otherwise died in the
meantime, thus reducing the number of people claiming compensation; the
thinking, it seems sometimes, must be "if only Hitler had killed every single
Jew, than there wouldn't have been any compensation to pay". The so-called
“Amends” have in fact degenerated into nothing but a shameless public relations
exercise masquerading as an expression of contrition: Its real purpose amounting
in effect to making a fool of the victims and of world public opinion.

This is
the background against which German leaders have the nerve to create the
impression—warping German public opinion in the process—that the persecuted in
general and Jews in particular are taking advantage of Germans' bad conscience,
when they demand what supposedly is unreasonable compensation.

Reeducation is
urgently called for

Nonetheless,
German culture, to which ironically Jews made no mean contribution, is one of
the world's great cultures. Hence, Germans must posses some positive attributes
worth salvaging. To ignore their faults, however, is a disservice to everyone
concerned. It's imperative that we hold up to Germans a mirror in which they can
see themselves as they really are and urge them to better themselves. Alas, in
pursuing the task of making Germans aware of their shortcomings, the Diaspora
mentality, which leads Jews habitually to thank God for the rain whenever the
Gentiles spit on them, isn't helpful.

Not
surprisingly young Germans overwhelmingly say: we are not guilty of anything,
and we had nothing to do with the Hitler era, why should we be paying
compensation for its victims? This question is at best naive. It must be borne
in mind that the Germans of the Third Reich were also the ones who rebuilt
Germany after the war. This reconstruction was facilitated by vast amounts of
money made available by the U.S.A., by the admission of Germany to the community
of western democracies and by the guidance it received from the conquering
Allies in putting its political house in order. With that more than generous
help, West Germans, yesterday's Hitler enthusiasts and fellow travelers, were
able to go to work and make Germany one of the richest countries in the world;
thus passing on to the younger generations considerable riches as well as an
enviable piece of territory and an abundance of cultural wealth. This
inheritance, however, is encumbered with the heavy debt incurred by the
generations of the Third Reich because of the crimes they were involved in. Now
in no civilized society can the heirs to an estate disregard its liabilities if
they wish to keep the assets. Young Germans should not be held accountable
for the sins of their parents and grandparents. They needn't apologize, and they
should not be punished for outrages they didn't commit. However, paying one's
debts isn't punishment, it is something honest people do as a matter of course.
Since young Germans show no inclination to part with the considerable assets
they have inherited, they are obligated to pay the debts that go with them. As
long as they don't have the decency to do so, they are tantamount to accomplices
after the fact of the Nazis, all their talk of regret and their professions of
friendship amounting to sheer hypocrisy.

THE DEADBEAT TENANTS

The subject of
this essay is Holocaust compensation. It has become fashionable lately to talk
about Holocaust compensation when what is actually meant is the compensation of
World War II forced laborers. Using the term Holocaust in this context is
inappropriate. Nor is Holocaust compensation “reparations”. Reparations being
defined by Merriam-Webster as: Compensation in money or materials payable by a
defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a
result of hostilities with the defeated nation.

Recruiting
and using forced labor is part of a belligerent’s war effort. The claims for
compensation arising out of forced labor currently pressed by individuals
against German wartime employers derive their legitimacy from the concepts of
unjust enrichment as well as liability for war crimes. Jewish claimants who
qualify for Holocaust compensation often also qualify for forced labor
compensation; these claims are not mutually exclusive claims.

As to war,
Carl von Clausewitz, the celebrated authority on war, observed a good hundred
and fifty years ago: “War is a political instrument, a continuation of political
relations, a carrying out of the same by other means.” In other words in the
tradition of even the civilized world, such as it is, war is an intrinsically
acceptable mode of behavior justified under certain circumstances. What these
circumstances may be and what is acceptable in the conduct of war is, in
practice, decided mainly by the war parties themselves according to their own
lights. Thus, not surprisingly the history of our civilization is largely the
story of myriad wars and the attendant war crimes.

The Holocaust is a different matter
altogether: business as usual is out of the question. The term Holocaust
properly used denotes the Genocide perpetrated by Germany upon the Jews: “Die
Endlösung” (meaning the final solution of the Jewish question). Even if Germany
perpetrated this Genocide under the cover of World War II, genocide is neither
war nor a war crime and it isn’t just mass murder. In its narrowest sense as is
meant by “The Holocaust” it’s racism taking the extreme course of
premeditated, systematic, and cold-blooded, extermination of a whole
peoplethat
had no history of hostility towards the perpetrator state or any of its citizens
nor the means or intention of endangering or damaging it in any
mannerThis is exactly what Germany in the days of the third Reich indulged in,
and almost fully carried out; having succeeded in killing some 75% of the
erstwhile Jewish population in the areas under its control:certainly an unprecedented crime, for a highly civilized
nation.

To fully understand
the unique perversityof the Holocaust one must consider the fact
that far from harming Germany, Jews benefited it greatly, having made
considerable contributions to its humanities, sciences, arts, commerce and
industry. Germans’ very claim to be considered civilized rests upon their
“Christian” ethic and the tradition of studiousness, both of which they got, by
way of their clergy, from the Jews.

Now some
object to the idea of a crime being committed by a nation, saying that there is
no such thing as collective guilt. This sort of argumentation, is beside the
point as it ignores the fact that by all accounts most Third Reich Germans were
individually guilty of aiding and abetting the Nazis murderous crusade, with
their guilt ranging from enthusiastic participation to unconscionable
indifference. Besides, we are not talking here primarily about criminal
culpability but about liability for damages; the later doesn’t necessarily
presuppose criminality. If you make a turn into a one-way-street the wrong way
by mistake and collide with an oncoming car: you may not be guilty of any crime
but you can still be made liable for the damage caused. Moreover, that the
actions of the representatives of organizations, in their capacity as such,
accrue to the benefit or detriment of the organization as a whole is a tenet of
our culture. The same applies to nations, which are nothing but organizations
representing perceived or real collective interests of their nationals.

Hitler didn’t
force himself on the German people. He became their supreme leader legally. And
while he was a despot, it can by no means be said that he oppressed the German
people. Letting Hitler manage the affairs of the state and doing his bidding
made the Holocaust possible. So, even if we are prepared to assume that it all
was just an innocent mistake on the part of the entire population, the German
nation is still liable for damages because of its mistake.

Incidentally,
chancellor Konrad Adenauer, the first post-war German chancellor, who may be
considered the father of present-day Germany, was among the first to proclaim
the German nation’s responsibility for the Holocaust. Writing privately as early
as February 1946 to the Clergyman Custodis he pointed out that the German people
knew a good deal of the crimes of the Third Reich, and having done nothing to
prevent them must accept as a nation the blame for what happened.

German politicians are in the habit of
impertinently begging on all kinds of occasions the Jewish people for
forgiveness for the Holocaust, for which there can be no forgiveness,
proclaiming piously that nothing can ever rectify the wrong done. The
comfortable conclusion they draw is that asking ad nauseam for forgiveness is a
proper “Ersatz” for the real thing; leaving open a “moral” obligation for only
token compensation. Well when you cause a traffic accident, you don’t just get
out of your car and say how sorry you are and tip the other driver as a token of
your regret. If you are a responsible person, you see to it that the damage gets
paid in full. That talk by itself is meaningless, as tokenism is unacceptable,
is surely something that the German public can be made to understand.

On February 3,
1998 a US fighter plane attached to NATO flying too low over the Italian Alps
severed a lift cable. A cabin carrying 21 skiers plummeted to earth and all but
one were killed. It was an accident, the result of negligence. No kind of malice
was involved. Two years later Italy’s Prime Minister D’alema signed a decree
granting the heirs of each of the dead damages of $ 2 million of which the U.S.
had to pay 75%. Eight of the dead skiers were Germans. Germans, one should know,
are in the habit of saying that Jews like to turn everything into money, notably
the Holocaust. Surprisingly none of the families of the killed German skiers
refused to be compensated; indeed, they took time out to consider if they
shouldn’t ask for more. It seems that Germans, no less than Jews, see nothing
wrong in compensating injury with money, by standards much more generous than
Germany’s, when they themselves are the aggrieved. One thing is sure: the
life of a Jewish person isn’t worth less than that of a German. Now let’s be
generous about it, and assess damages due for the Nazi persecution of the Jews,
certainly a worse offense than careless flying, at a modest $ 2 million for each
of the 8 million persecuted; and let the payment –$ 16 trillion– be due not as
of 1945 but as of January 1. 2000, thus ignoring the vast amount of accrued
interest. At 6% interest on this sum, $ 1 trillion a year would be payable
henceforth in compensation!

Since the1991
reunification of Germany, the German government saw no problem in transferring
resources to the tune of something like DM 170 billion a year from the
west to the erstwhile communist east. On the other hand, when it came to paying
Holocaust compensation, it took Germany 55 years to pay a comparable
total as expressed in to- day’s money.

While there is no precedent for the
Holocaust there is a precedent for Germany paying-up. After World War I, besides
having to pay reparations in cash, Germany lost 70,000 sq. km of its territory.
After the Second World War, on the basis of the four powers Potsdam Agreement,
the Soviet Union took away from Germany, as compensation for war crimes, among
other things 120.000 sq. km of its territory, displacing millions of Germans.
True, the war crimes perpetrated against the Soviet people were immense. The
Holocaust however was certainly no lesser crime and it certainly deserves no
lesser compensation. So, as of 1945, applying the norms set by the Potsdam
Agreement, those Jews that were persecuted by Germany and their heirs have a
claim to at least 120.000 sq. km, or a third of what is now Germany. Since the
people of the Third Reich couldn’t properly pass on to their heirs land they
have forfeited Germans are today living on territory that is partially not
theirs. Should they be thrown out? Not necessarily. But they should be required
to pay rent as compensation to the Jews! At a modest rent of 1 DM a sq. m. a
year the amount of compensation thus due amounts to DM 120 billion a year. So
far, the German nation hasn’t come even remotely close to paying its rent. It’s
high time Germans face up to this fact.

DECENT COMPENSATION NOW

As has been
shown in the preceding Essays the post-Third Reich generations of Germans though
not responsible for the events of that Regime, their German state is
nevertheless fully liable for the compensation due to its victims. Germans
however, seem to be aware neither of this fact nor that the compensation
rendered so far by Germany doesn’t amount to more than a mere
gesture.

In 1945, at
the end of World War II, Germany lay in ruins. Its cities were heaps of rubble
and its industry and infrastructure were severely damaged; the population,
swelled by hordes of displaced persons and demobilized soldiers, was in dire
straits: millions of people were in need of help. In those first postwar years,
Germany couldn’t do much by way of compensation, but one must fairly say, it
probably did for the survivors of the Holocaust all it could do at that time. To
expect truly adequate compensation in those days would have been unrealistic.
Germany had to be given a breathing space so it can get on its feet again.
Germany did get its breathing space, and than some. This, and the considerable
assistance Germany got, mainly from the U.S., didn’t fail to have their salutary
effect, so that the thin years didn’t last forever: Ten years after the war
Germany had already become an economic powerhouse, and from then on it has never
looked back. However, the Holocaust compensation it offers–which, except for
cost of living adjustments hasn’t changed in substance since its inception–would
make you think Germany never managed to get out of the poorhouse. To be sure,
for those in need, receiving some compensation was and is much better than
getting nothing, and in that sense the compensation paid did and is doing quite
a bit of good. This may be seen as a mitigating circumstance, but it does not
alter the fact that the persecuted and their heirs are being shortchanged on a
grand scale, of all things to the benefit of the offspring of those responsible
for the havoc visited upon Europe’s Jewry.

That, those
who perished in the death camps were gravely wronged, as were those who survived
the camps after undergoing untold suffering is obvious. However, Auschwitz stood
only at the end of an infamous campaign of persecution that the Nazis initiated
right after Hitler’s ascendancy to power in 1933. Especially the outspoken got a
taste of Nazi wrath early on. Of those that wound up in concentration camps,
only those possessed of unusual mental and physical toughness survived, provided
they were extremely lucky to boot. The fragile among the persecuted never had a
chance. That is unless they managed to avoid the camps. For the fragile however,
the humiliation of being treated as pariahs, being uprooted and cast adrift of
their accustomed social and cultural moorings compounded by difficulties in
adapting to conditions in the foreign lands they took refuge in, often
experiencing sudden poverty, was physically and mentally so injurious that many
never managed to regain a measure of the material and constitutional well being
they enjoyed before their persecution by the Nazis. True, there are many who,
thanks to a tough constitution, managed to shake off the trauma of persecution
and starting from scratch after the war managed to become successful or even
outstandingly successful in their endeavors. However, for the majority of the
victims of Nazi persecution (the silent majority), be they former death camp
inmates or not, the damage caused was considerable.

Consider for example the case of successful professionals
whose capacity to work was diminished or disappeared altogether because of their
traumatic experiences, or that of those children of the persecuted that grew up
in dysfunctional homes of psychologically damaged parents’ and acquired their
mental problems. Thus, gifted individuals, be they first or second-generation
persecution victims, often ended up as sorry underachievers because of the Third
Reich. Cases like this abound. The difference between a successful professional
career and a lowly one or none at all, as is obvious, amounts over a lifetime to
millions of dollars in material damage alone.

Or, take the
case of the children of Jews who left their real estate and other property
behind as they fled the Nazis. As is often the case, the offspring’s efforts to
have the properties returned came to nothing. Not the least because in many
cases the offspring not being familiar with the exact circumstances of the
properties’ disposal are in no position to plead their case effectively or even
at all. (for a sample case
click here). And if they
happen to be not particularly gifted, or handicapped as a direct or indirect
result of persecution, they wind up living in rather modest circumstances:
instead of enjoying the opulence that would have been theirs, had they been able
to inherit the ancestral properties. On the other hand, the offspring of sundry
murderers, for example of an SS officer, similarly not much endowed by way of
natural ability, are much better off. The offspring of Nazis and their
accomplices didn’t have to surmount any hurdles in order to inherit their
forefathers’ property after the war, and unlike their Jewish counterparts who
lost out, are now leading a life of luxury thanks to the wealth they inherited
from their criminal parents or grandparents.

Be it an
impaired career or loss of property, we are talking not about an abstract damage
caused to an abstract entity but about actual damage caused to thousands upon
thousands of real individuals.

The facts as
described above are recognized to some extent by German “Amends” (literally:
“making things right again”) laws, which are intended to redress the wrongs of
Nazi racial and political persecution. Restitution laws and the Federal
Indemnification Law constitute Germany’s main “Amends” legislation.

Restitution
pertains to the act of returning a specific piece of property to its
identifiable erstwhile owner. It is more than obvious that for Jews to own
property in Hitler’s Third Reich was out of the question: one way or another
they were forced sooner or later by decree or the prevailing circumstances,
which were such that they in themselves constituted duress, to part company with
it. Hence, the obligation to restitute, which derives from the common legal
precepts of illegal seizure and the invalidity of contracts brought about by
duress.

Indemnification
legislation is based on the universal rule that damages are due for wrongfully
caused injury. Among the injuries covered by the Federal Indemnification Law
are: death, physical or mental disability, incarceration and vocational
disadvantages. The beneficiaries of these laws are mostly, but not solely,
persecuted Jewish persons. Generally one can say about these laws: that their
coverage is too limited, i.e. not all those who should have been covered are
covered; they are poorly formulated, leaving the door open to willfulness in
their implementation; in the case of compensation, the compensation they provide
is niggardly.

To get
redress under the “Amends” claimants must run the gauntlet of bureaucracy,
experts, and courts, which, with due respect to many good intentioned
individuals, are often less than forthcoming, or incompetent, or both. On the
other hand, mediocre lawyers, or organizations represented by such, represent
the claimants in most cases. As anybody who knows anything about legal systems
can tell you, being right does by no means guarantee winning one’s case in
court. Miscarriage of justice is quite a common occurrence everywhere, and even
more so for those pursuing claims under Germany’s “Amends” laws. The fact that
getting redress depends on the vagaries of the legal process is an outrage in
itself. In view of the origins of its liability, and the fact that there is
not the slightest likelihood of it ever overpaying, Germany’s preoccupation
with not being taken advantage of by the occasional bogus claimant is unseemly;
it must fully assume the risk of paying unjustifiable claims: it can be expected
to pay on even the most remotely plausible claims so as to make sure that not
even one deserving claimant goes empty-handed. The more so because for every
bogus claimant there are about ten bona fide ones who haven’t come forward to
press their claims; some out of disdain, others because they missed a deadline
for not being aware of their rights, and still others who in cases of
restitution couldn’t locate their assets or being heirs didn’t possess enough
information to be able to specify the assets. And all this is to say nothing of
the murdered millions with no kin left to pursue any claims, and the fact that
the German state has been vastly enriched by Jewish real estate that was never
restituted.

Over the
years, Germany has entered into all kinds of “Amends” agreements with several
governments and Jewish organizations. These agreements led to corresponding
legislation. Germany’s position is that by sticking to the agreements it has
discharged its duty to redress the wrongs perpetrated upon the persecuted. Deep
in their hearts even German politician probably know that that kind of sophistry
doesn’t wash. The bureaucrats and functionaries who negotiated these agreements
with the Germans, besides having their own agendas, were also under pressure to
get results in a hurry so as to get some benefits for the persecuted who needed
them urgently; a circumstance that Germany didn’t hesitate to take advantage of.
A recent good example of this is Germany’s agreement to grant death camp
survivors living in former Soviet-Bloc countries, who have received nothing for
55 years, a pension of one hundred dollars a month for the duration of just four
years. With the bulk of the survivors being in their eighties and needy, Germany
to all intents and purposes held a gun to the heads of the negotiators, saying
in effect: “you either accept or we negotiate until every one of the intended
beneficiaries is dead”. What else could the negotiators do but agree to the
ridiculous pittance offered?

It must be
pointed out that no one; a U.S. president, an Israeli prime minister, other
politicians and bureaucrats, certainly not German ones, or self appointed
representatives of the persecuted can absolve Germany of its obligation to
render just compensation for its persecution of the Jews. Justice isn’t
something one arrives at by haggling with assorted dealers in expediency.
Germany persecuted individuals and first and foremost has obligations to
individuals and not to organizations and abstract entities of any kind. As long
as it can be shown by any plausible standard that the “Amends” hasn’t begun to
match in adequacy the crime perpetrated, Germany isn’t exculpated. It is a
matter of quintessential morality, or if you like, of self-evident natural
law.

The free
riders

Shouldn’t we
take pity on Germany? Stop being Shylocks insisting on a pound of its flesh? Is
it fair to expect it to do more by way of amends than what it has done so far
when considering its ability to pay? These questions need to be addressed. In
March of this first year of the twenty-first century, the renowned Harvard law
professor Alan Dershowitz visited Berlin. In a lecture there, he told his rapt
audience, among other things, that on his first visit to Berlin in the Sixties
he couldn’t comprehend what he saw: it seemed by all appearances that Germany
has won the war. He’s not the only one with that impression. A 1959 movie comedy
starring Peter Sellers “The Mouse That Roared”, with its theme that losing a war
to the U.S. is about the best thing that can happen to a country, alluded to
Germany. Ironically, the defeat of those who made the Third Reich possible had
indeed a very happy ending for them –courtesy of the good fairy U.S.A. About 20%
of Germans were mildly “punished” for their war and Holocaust responsibility by
being forced to spend 40 years as residents of the drab Soviet-block. Not so the
other 80% of Germans living in the west: Immediately after the war, they
received Care packets from the west to tide them over the acute shortages of the
time. They were kept afloat for the duration in Soviet-blockaded Berlin by the
American and British “Berlin-airlift” that supplied a city of about two million
inhabitants solely by air; a heroic operation costly in terms of money and the
lives of 75 crewman. Soon they received Marshall-Plan capital infusions worth
billions to help them rebuild their country in a hurry. U.S. soldiers and
armaments protected them from the Soviets. They didn’t have to fight in Korea or
in Viet Nam. They didn’t go to Beirut. Nor did they fight in Iraq to secure the
oil lifeline that they depend on more than the U.S. In Somalia, they spent their
time digging for water while Americans were getting themselves killed. In
Kosovo, they manned radar planes at a safe distance from enemy fire. And while
the U.S. is paying a price for speaking out and acting against international
terrorism, they keep a low profile, cynically playing Dr. Jekyll while letting
the U.S. appear as Mr. Hyde. And while Jewish parents in Israel, many of them
Holocaust survivors, are spending sleepless nights as their sons are putting
their lives on the line, fighting to secure for Jews a haven from anti-Semitism,
all most Germans have to worry about is what ski-slopes are they going to spend
the coming winter-vacation on or on what exotic beach the next
summer-vacation.

Ability to
pay

Since the
demise of the Third Reich Germany has been enjoying not only a free ride but,
for several decades now, statistically one of the highest standards of living in
the world. Beyond statistics, it’s the considered opinion of many observers that
the quality of life for most Germans is among the best anywhere. The social net
provided by the state is enviable. Health insurance and care of the elderly and
incapacitated beats, by a wide margin, anything the U.S. has got to offer its
people; Germans also work fewer hours a week and have about double the amount of
vacation, holidays and other paid absence from work. Total net assets of private
households are considerable, on average nearly 200,000 Dollars a household. The
days when globetrotting Americans wielding cameras were champion tourists are
long gone: ordinary Germans are by far and away the champions now, thinking
nothing of spending all over the world many billions every year on the amenities
of tourism.

The
upshot

That stinginess in
compensation isn’t compatible with genuine regret goes without saying. By any
standard, life is very good in Germany. There is therefore no reason in the
world not to expect Germany to do more by way of its “Amends” than just handing
out small change. Germany’s Federal Comptroller Office issues a yearly report in
which it highlights wasteful spending by government agencies running into tens
of billions of DM. Fabulous amounts of money are also available for
non-essential or non-urgent projects mainly pandering to the self-importance of
politicians. So, just in case there is no money in the national till, Germany
should see to it that it wastes less and spends less on vanity projects. And if
some belt-tightening might prove necessary, nobody should have to cry for the
German people, since any belt-tightening required is going to be insignificant
in the context of German affluence. And Germans are arguably still going to be
on the whole better off not only than say the poor people of India but also the
not so poor people of the U.S. So, it’s probably not too much to ask, that
Germany at long last demonstrates that it considers its obligation to amenda first mortgage,and recognizes that setting aside leftovers
for holocaust compensation is morally wrong. Commensurate legislation is already
some fifty years late. Thus, speedy implementation is a must.

The following lines
should be of interest mainly, but not only, to those who are familiar with the
intricacies of present Amends legislation, and contain Suggestions intended to
illustrate by contrast its inadequacies.

It should be appreciated at the outset that
Germany’s “Amends” such as they are, cover just its own actions. Implying that,
if say Swiss banks enriched themselves at the expense of the persecuted, it’s
none of Germany’s business. Such an attitude is blatantly dishonest and ought to
be recognized, not least by Germans themselves, as deplorable. The root of the
evil was Germany. It created, in the years of the Third Reich, the appalling
conditions that led to breaches of trust in Switzerland, to pogroms in Eastern
Europe, to loss of property all over Europe, and the like. Therefore, the German
state is primarily liable for the entire damage thus caused. And, as far as the
injured are concerned, Germany is the one obliged to take care of the bill in
full. Should Germany consider it appropriate, it can go and chase Switzerland,
Poland and whomever and haggle with them to share its burden.

Now being
pragmatic and very user friendly: Germany ought, as an absolute minimum, to
earmark no less that 1% of its GDP for its “Amends” effort; or at present about
twenty times the 2 Billion DM a year it’s actually spending. For starters, it
should pass without delay legislation trebling, as of January 1, 2000, payments
of all those already receiving compensation under the Federal Indemnification
Law (BEG) or other laws covering the persecuted; the extra payment to be reduced
by 1 DM for every 2 DM of net personal income of the beneficiary over 10.000 DM
a month from all sources. Entitlements must be for life in all cases and
payments and monetary yardsticks must be linked to the cost of living.
Entitlements must be irrevocable. For the benefit of recipients who happen to be
in financial difficulties, the law should stipulate that creditors of the
recipient can’t attach compensation payments be they current or accumulated
arrears due; arrears nevertheless may be offered as security to obtain a
commensurate cash advance or an equivalent. All payments must be tax-free for
all recipients. Upon the death of the beneficiary, his entitlement should pass
to his spouse or in the case of unmarried couples the cohabitation-partner and
next to the offspring or alternatively to any natural person explicitly
designated by the deceased.

As a second
step, a further law should be passed expeditiously augmenting the above as
follows: All persons earmarked by Nazi racial criteria for persecution who
stayed in the years 1933–1945 even for the shortest time in areas under German
control or influence, or who fled their homes to avoid the advancing Germans,
regardless of whether they were actually persecuted or not, and regardless of
their present domicile, as well as their children, regardless of when and where
they were born, shall be guaranteed by the German state the supplementary
benefits, and double the after-tax income, of the average vocationally active
person in Germany. Later generations, if born before the end of the present
century will be guaranteed upon reaching the age of 18 the benefits and an
income equal to that of the average vocationally active person in Germany; those
still under 18 and orphaned, should be entitled to the guaranteed income of the
deceased parent. The personal income of the beneficiary to be the deciding
factor; the income of a spouse or other family members should be of no
significance. If the supplementary benefits and the income after taxes of the
entitled person are less than the guaranteed amount, the German state should
take care of the difference. Personal assets worth up to a million DM net of
liabilities–this figure to be adjusted for inflation periodically–should be
disregarded; an income of 3% annually shall be assumed for net worth in excess
of this amount for property not producing any income. There should be no
deadline to apply for the benefits.

As for
restitution of property, a law should be immediately passed stipulating the
following: All past decisions rejecting restitution under existing German
federal and Allied laws shall, upon request of the claimant and payment of a one
time fee of DM 1000, be reviewed by the German Federal Court (BGH); all
decisions– with opinions shown to contain errors of fact and or poor reasoning,
or where the facts as originally established by the courts can be alternatively
construed in a way favorable to the claimants–must be presumed, conclusively, to
be wrong, and must be reversed. Redress to be provided as set out below.

A law
stipulating the following should replace the above law as soon as possible: All
persons who were earmarked by Nazi racial criteria for persecution, who owned
identifiable property in areas of Nazi Germany’s control or influence, and had
to part with it in the years 1933–1945, be it by sale or forced sale or due to
foreclosure or by abandoning it or any other manner; should be entitled to have
this property restituted to them, if this hasn’t happened already; prior
decisions rejecting restitution to be disregarded. There should be no deadline
for applying. The law is to apply also to beneficial owners of property held in
another person’s name, if the possibility that such ownership was the case can’t
be entirely excluded. The fact that the property has already been restituted to
the state in its capacity as a legal heir, or to any other entity on similar
considerations should not impinge on the right of the applicant to restitution.
On the conclusive presumption that actual restitution of real estate at such a
late time is an impossibility–among other reasons due to changes that took place
on the property, or because it would be unfair to the present owners, or because
it is located outside Germany–75% tax free of the highest market value of the
property obtaining since 1945, or were appropriate, that would have been
obtaining if no changes to the property had taken place, should be paid by
Germany to the claimant in cash plus 8% compound interest from January 1,
2000–in lieu of actual restitution. Beside the original owner, his immediate
heirs should be entitled to restitution, with next in succession spouses or
cohabitation-partners of such heirs. Next their children, and other legal heirs
provided they are natural persons. The law must also provide that an entitled
person may cede the claim to restitution to any person.

The
suggestions made above are designed to leave an absolute minimum to the
discretion of bureaucrats, experts and courts. In case of litigation, a German
state court (LG) and the German federal court (BGH) should have jurisdiction,
except were otherwise specified above. At both levels, facts and the
interpretation of facts and law should be subject to review. Plausibility and
not absolute proof of fact should be required of claimants. Representation by
lawyers at all levels shouldn’t be mandatory, and lawyers may represent
claimants only on a contingency basis, with total fees not exceeding 5% of the
claims’ value. The claimant if he so wishes may also appoint as his
representative any person of his choice. Final complete review should be
delegated to a U.S. Court of Appeals in N. Y. and or the U.S. Supreme Court–to
be arranged by treaty. All costs of litigation except those mentioned above must
be covered by the German state. These provisions should apply to all
indemnification and restitution laws suggested above. Any decision should be
subject to appeal only by the claimants; adverse decisions should never become
final. Throughout, “in doubt for the claimant” must apply.

Payments to Israel?

As
already pointed out the victims of Germany’s crimes were real individuals and
these individuals and their natural heirs are the ones who have the first
inalienable claim to be compensated fully by Germany. Now an
“Amends”-legislation as outlined above will still cost Germany certainly less
than ½% of its GDP annually, thus leaving room for further considerations;
like payments of a billion dollars a year to defray at least in part the costs
of Israel’s security—as compensation for damage inflicted on Jewry
collectively: Germany took it upon itself to denude Europe of Jews; chasing most
of them skywards through the chimney. Therefore, among other things, it should
assume fully its responsibility to shoulder the burden, to a very significant
extent, of securing an alternative habitat for those Jews for whom the historic
trauma of the Holocaust became an indelible determinant of their consciousness
and thus a defining element of their Jewishness: making it impossible for them
to feel at home anywhere but in a Jewish state.

If you are interested
in the subject of holocaust compensation you may have come across the name
Norman G. Finkelstein. “G” most likely stands for gastritis. Considering his ill
temper he must be suffering from a very bad case of the malaise. Finkelstein’s
case is aggravated by the fact his gastritis must have affected his brain,
making him the monster he is. The man should see a doctor. However, by those
positively disposed, Norman’s ludicrous diatribes will be surely percieved
as nothing more than the unsophisticated antics of a loony comedian.

Finkelstein’s
contention that Jewish institutions are in the business of robbing victims of
the Holocaust—among them his parents—of some of the compensation meant for them
isn’t without merit. His distaste for said institutions on that account is most
probably justified; at least to some extent.

As a
matter of general principle, Finkelstein is also quite right to consider it
ill-advised for Jewish institutions to go after the Swiss and East-European
countries for compensation. He fails however to understand that they should have
been going after Germany for all the damage caused anywhere as explained in the
essay“Compensation
Technicalities” (click here). Cheated individuals asking for disgorgement of monies
embezzled by Swiss banks from specific accounts is of course a different
matter.

But, Norman
Finkelstein is a classical case of second generation Holocaust damaged as
described in the essay “Decent Compensation Now” (click here).You just watch this
man talk and you know he is sick. He deserves some compassion.And Holocaust compensation.

Norman’s madness
becomes an awesome spectacle, think of mad scientist movies, when he advances,
in all earnest, the sick proposition that Germany is a victim of greed driven
Jewish machinations: whatever can be said of Jewish institutions Germany is
no victim. As made abundantly clear in the essays “The Good Germans”
(click
here) and “The Deadbeat Tenants” (click here) Germany has paid in compensation, compared to the
magnitude of its crimes next to nothing, and relative to a very considerate
assessment of its ability to pay not much more than nothing. The duped being the
persecuted and their heirs — including poor Norman.

It seems Norman was
advised by his doctors to smoke pot for symptomatic relief. At any rate his
essay “The Lessons of Holocaust Compensation”, published on the internet,
contains distinctly psychedelic lessons.

What Norman
imparts us in said, if not in style but then in its amazing content rather
amusing essay, is in a nutshell the following equation: If Germany has to pay
compensation to Jews for their persecution than Israel has to pay compensations
to Palestinians for their dispossession.

May seem logical
at first glance, especially to a warped mind. What the wretch doesn’t see is
that in the saga of the Israeli – Palestinian
strife(click here) the Palestinians are not the “Jews” of the piece, but so
to speak the German aggressors— the Israelis being the victims of their
aggression. (The awareness of this reality explains the, to the uninitiated
seemingly perplexing, “one-sidedness” of US Mid-East policy.) Like in the case
of Germany, defeat and the misery it entails doesn’t in the least change the
fact of Arab culpability. The lesson that Norman so outlandishly misses is that
the Arab nation at large and Palestinians in particular are the ones who owe
compensation and reparations: for forcing wars on Israel; to say nothing of the
terror they have been subjecting Jews to for some one hundred years now.

Putting for a change the
above in his pipe and smoking itmay do Norman some good.